Buying a Dell: Which screen type (UXGA, etc) would you suggest for graphic design?

O

offtone

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
205
I have no idea what the differences are. I just need even tones, good viewing angles, brightness, and colour fidelity. Price doesn't really concern me, either. Having a lame monitor would be baaaad.

PS: Going 17 inch, and need 1920x1200 or whatever their highest resolution is. I believe that's the one. Might be 1080 or something...

Thanks for any help with this! I've no experience with any of them (never owned a laptop) and would really appreciate opinions from people who've used them for photography or design, or anything related.

Thanks in advance!
- Aaron
 
OK UXGA etc are just the word values of resolutions. If you want 1920X1200 you want WUXGA. The 1720 has it as an option. 17.0-inch WUXGA (1920x1200) TrueLife LCD. TrueLife is a glossy screen with a higher contrast. Tones are a standard notebook LCD, so you might need to calibrate it. Most newer LCD's have good viewing angles 170 degrees or better. Brightness is important, but so is contrast. Color is calibrated, but cannot match a high end flat pannel or CRT.

Cheers,
 
Ah, I would really like to stay away from glossy... Are all WUXGAs glossy? Or ust the TrueLife? Reflections suck, and in my experience with glossies, the colours are brighter in the center of the screen and darker as they approach the edges. Moving your head around will move the "bright spot" around, too. I've observed less of that with non-glossy, but I really haven't seen a glossy screen on a new-ish laptop. Saw these a long time ago, so maybe they've improved?
 
offtone said:
I have no idea what the differences are. I just need even tones, good viewing angles, brightness, and colour fidelity.
Click to expand...

You know what, I haven't really come across this (coming from a critical desktop sense) among any of the WUXGA 17-inch displays recently. The top of the line Dell screens represent pretty much the best you can get, which actually isn't that hot IMO in terms of what you mention. And yeah, they're glossy. Personally I find the viewing angles the most limiting aspect, and not the glossiness of the monitor. It's OK, not terrible but it can't be held up to the same sort of standard as 'proper' desktop monitors.

Bottom line is - and it does depend on your standards - get a proper external desktop monitor like a Dell 2408WFP + calibrator for checking your results if you're doing colour-critical stuff for a living.
 
Laptop LCDs are nowhere near the kind of quality you'd want for graphic design, regardless of the brand. They generally all use TN panels, which can't reproduce the colour range or quality that higher-quality PVA and IPS panels can show. If you really need a good display for graphics work, you will need a quality external display; a laptop screen will simply not cut it.
 
Ah, alright then. Well, I'm just looking for the lesser of all evils, I guess. I realise they aren't top-notch. I've got a 30" Dell at home that I'll be using when it's docked.

Thanks :)
 
In which case you'll need to make sure that the laptop you buy has dual-link DVI, or a docking port with dual-link DVI functionality.
 
Hehe. Way ahead of ya! http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1316706 - The laptop would still need a DLDVI port regardless of the dock, no? I don't know how docks work, but I figure if the laptop's video card can't power a DLDVI, the dock won't be able to make up for it?

Bleh. All relevant in that other thread of mine. Heh. Apparently I need a 8700M GT or better.
 
I can tell you either the XPS 1730 (more of a gaming notebook) or the Precision M6300 with the 8800M GTX graphics option. From Dell. Not sure of other brands.
 
You can get 17" WUXGA non-glossy screen on the Dell M6300, HP 8710w and a MacBook Pro.
 
Dell does offer an XGA LCD Anti-Glare Display on their Vostro business line of laptops. I agree with you that I hate the super-shiny glare you get on most new laptops at, say, a Best Buy.
 
offtone said:
Hehe. Way ahead of ya! http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1316706 - The laptop would still need a DLDVI port regardless of the dock, no? I don't know how docks work, but I figure if the laptop's video card can't power a DLDVI, the dock won't be able to make up for it?

Bleh. All relevant in that other thread of mine. Heh. Apparently I need a 8700M GT or better.
Click to expand...
Docs on business class laptops (dell lattitude, etc) are more than just port replicators and can provide connections not on the laptop. Mine adds a dual link DVI-D port (not all D series laptops can drive it at max though), a digital audio jack, and a tv out jack that aren't offered on the laptop itself.
 
Ah, cool. I'm not sure how that works, though... How does it make Dual-Link DVI without actually having it? But if it does it, that's cool. I'll have to talk to a Dell rep to see what's up. Though I'll likely just buy one with a decent video card.
 
It doesn't "make" dual-link DVI. What it does is that if the laptop is capable of producing a dual-link DVI signal but there isn't room in the chassis for the port, the dock can connect to the video card through the dock connector and provide the ports that the laptop didn't have room for.
 
To extend zero82z's comments the dock connector in a modern laptop is similar in appearance to a PC expansion card/slot. Lots of pins spaced closely together. In fact higher end docks have an slot for an (IIRC half hight) pc expansion card.
 
Ah, well that does sound handy... Though, how am I to know which dock does this magical Dual-Link DVI trick, and which laptops (or video cards) are capable of it? I'd imagine the dock specs would list "dual link DVI" somewhere, but the laptops' specs might well leave it out, no?

Thanks again for this! The dock route is intriguing...
 
offtone said:
Ah, well that does sound handy... Though, how am I to know which dock does this magical Dual-Link DVI trick, and which laptops (or video cards) are capable of it? I'd imagine the dock specs would list "dual link DVI" somewhere, but the laptops' specs might well leave it out, no?

Thanks again for this! The dock route is intriguing...
Click to expand...

Well, most of the discrete graphic card options on new laptops support Dual-Link, but the manufacturer might strip it out - so you should ask them directly about that.
 
Yep, the best way would be to call up Dell and ask them directly about which models and options would provide the port.
 
The precision workstation (M6300 has a Dual Link DVI port). As does the M1730..
 
For a lightweight 17" machine I have to say the Macbook Pro is quite compelling. It's not 'road-ready' as it's very fragile, and it has major issues dumping heat effectively (which basically puts the machine into self-preservation mode if you do stuff that actually uses the power that the machine should be capable of) but it is the lightest 17" machine with a dual-link interface and a decent (although I wonder if Apple sometimes gets Dell's rejects, and not the other way around) screen. Despite the build quality issues and the heat problems, if you need a 17" machine that's actually carryable I think the Macbook Pro is a compromise worth making. Graphics programs shouldn't stress a machine so if light duty defines 99% of your use, then I think you should consider the Macbook Pro.

The problem with the M1730 is that it's a total boat anchor, with the Precision not far away (although not as bad certainly). I actually stagger with the M1730 + PSU in my shoulder bag.
 
Sean said:
The precision workstation (M6300 has a Dual Link DVI port). As does the M1730..
Click to expand...

For the M6300, Dell says otherwise:
http://www.dell.com/content/learnmo...cs_precnnb&~lt=popup&~series=precn&~tab=other

The 1730 does seem to support dual link (and on another page directly says "Dual-link DVI-I (support for 30-inch displays)"):
http://www.dell.com/content/learnmo..._graphics_xpsnb&~lt=popup&~s=gen&~tab=details

As I see it, if connecting it to the 30" display "properly" is vital, the Precision is out of the running, and then you're left with the XPS, which only has a glossy screen and is going to be very heavy, or the MBP, which is something like 4 lbs lighter (starting weights are 10.6 and 6.8lbs) and has the option for the non-glossy screen.

I had something written about the price (basically that "equivalent" (the minimum graphics option for the XPS is much more powerful than the MBP) systems that would be good enough are about the same price around $3000), but you mentioned that price is not a concern. If you are going to need Windows, then with the MBP, it may or may not be harder to find all the proper drivers to get it running smoothly compared to the XPS, which is designed for Windows, though I have no experience with getting XP/Vista running on a Mac.
 
It's not that big of a deal to get a Mac running Windows reasonably well. All the drivers are provided. But it is a tad more flaky than a comparable 'real' Windows machine - not just because of the drivers, but because of the hardware as well. As I said, "light use all the time" users should be a candidate for the Macbook Pro.
 
Ronco said:
For a lightweight 17" machine I have to say the Macbook Pro is quite compelling. It's not 'road-ready' as it's very fragile, and it has major issues dumping heat effectively (which basically puts the machine into self-preservation mode if you do stuff that actually uses the power that the machine should be capable of) but it is the lightest 17" machine with a dual-link interface and a decent (although I wonder if Apple sometimes gets Dell's rejects, and not the other way around) screen. Despite the build quality issues and the heat problems, if you need a 17" machine that's actually carryable I think the Macbook Pro is a compromise worth making. Graphics programs shouldn't stress a machine so if light duty defines 99% of your use, then I think you should consider the Macbook Pro.
Click to expand...

HP 8710w is not that much bigger/heavier.

yee245 said:
For the M6300, Dell says otherwise:
http://www.dell.com/content/learnmo...cs_precnnb&~lt=popup&~series=precn&~tab=other
Click to expand...

That might be true for the DVI port on the machine. Might be different using the docking station...
And on the configuration page, you can order the M6300 with a 30" screen.
Found also review that DL-DVI is on board...
 
Lack said:
HP 8710w is not that much bigger/heavier.
Click to expand...

You're right. Despite the plastic case it'll be better built, more durable and more solidly running (if distinctly unglamorous) than the Macbook Pro as well - I'm just not sure how the Quadro holds up to the Geforce in everyday apps, and even 2D design apps. The FX 1600M is supposed to be a 'repurposed' 8700M, but in DirectX apps will inevitably fare quite a bit worse than the 8600M. So I guess it depends on your priorities, plus other minor things like the lack of a webcam.
 
Ronco said:
You're right. Despite the plastic case it'll be better built, more durable and more solidly running (if distinctly unglamorous) than the Macbook Pro as well - I'm just not sure how the Quadro holds up to the Geforce in everyday apps, and even 2D design apps. The FX 1600M is supposed to be a 'repurposed' 8700M, but in DirectX apps will inevitably fare quite a bit worse than the 8600M. So I guess it depends on your priorities, plus other minor things like the lack of a webcam.
Click to expand...

I think it will perform just as well.
The optional FX3600M (GF8800GTX) will be way more powerful.
 
My reason for wanting a Dell: The warranty. Apple likes to jerk people around from what I've seen, and the same appears to go for HP as well. Dell, on the other hand, seems not to ask questions. The precision would be nice, and I might consider it, but the M1730 looks like I get a more versatile computer for less money. I suspect I'll despise the glossy screen, though... Hrm. A 15", non-glossy, Dual-Link-capable laptop would be fantastic.
 
offtone said:
My reason for wanting a Dell: The warranty. Apple likes to jerk people around from what I've seen, and the same appears to go for HP as well. Dell, on the other hand, seems not to ask questions. The precision would be nice, and I might consider it, but the M1730 looks like I get a more versatile computer for less money. I suspect I'll despise the glossy screen, though... Hrm. A 15", non-glossy, Dual-Link-capable laptop would be fantastic.
Click to expand...

You can get a nice M6300 from Dell outlet for even less then 1500$.
MBP can be 15,4" non-glossy and DL capable... 15,4" from Dell (M4300 or D830 might also be DL capable, but you have to check that @Dell).

Another option is to get a advanced dock and put there a DL-DVI equipped PCI card (There's a Radeon HD2400 at Egg, but I'm not sure if it will fit).
 
A Quadro IS a Geforce card/chip/GPU/etc. Quadros are simply Geforce GPUs with additional features designed primarily for high-end 3D work such as anti-aliased lines (on consumer level Geforce cards most of that is done by the drivers using CPU cycles) and some other goodies that major 3D applications like 3DStudio, Maya, SoftImage, etc work better with.

Check this wiki page about Quadros to see what GPU is actually in use, meaning the equivalents between Quadros and Geforce cards:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadro

If you're serious about design work with a laptop, and a Quadro is an option, get the Quadro over whatever Geforce card might be offered. If you want to play games, it's not an issue as I just said: they use the same GPUs, it's just that on Geforce cards (consumer stuff, even on laptops) the additional high-end features are disabled as there's no need for it. Gaming performance is effectively the same between a Quadro and the comparable Geforce GPU it's based on, plus or minus a few percentage points.
 
Joe Average said:
A Quadro IS a Geforce card/chip/GPU/etc. Quadros are simply Geforce GPUs with additional features designed primarily for high-end 3D work such as anti-aliased lines (on consumer level Geforce cards most of that is done by the drivers using CPU cycles) and some other goodies that major 3D applications like 3DStudio, Maya, SoftImage, etc work better with.

Check this wiki page about Quadros to see what GPU is actually in use, meaning the equivalents between Quadros and Geforce cards:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadro

If you're serious about design work with a laptop, and a Quadro is an option, get the Quadro over whatever Geforce card might be offered. If you want to play games, it's not an issue as I just said: they use the same GPUs, it's just that on Geforce cards (consumer stuff, even on laptops) the additional high-end features are disabled as there's no need for it. Gaming performance is effectively the same between a Quadro and the comparable Geforce GPU it's based on, plus or minus a few percentage points.
Click to expand...

Reely?

I've been benchmarks listing considerably poorer 3Dmark scores for comparable Quadros vs Geforces.
 
I've always heard the Quads were far worse in games. They focus on quality, not quantity. The GFs are the opposite.

In any case, what's this Dell outlet you speak of? :p
 
Ronco said:
I've been benchmarks listing considerably poorer 3Dmark scores for comparable Quadros vs Geforces.
Click to expand...

Card / 3DM01 / 3DM03 / 3DM05 / 3DM06
Quadro FX 1600M 32843 / 16009 / 9963 / 4937
GeForce 8700M GT 26598 / 14816 / 9102 / 4717

offtone said:
I've always heard the Quads were far worse in games. They focus on quality, not quantity. The GFs are the opposite.
Click to expand...

Urban legend I guess.

offtone said:
In any case, what's this Dell outlet you speak of? :p
Click to expand...

Dell refurbished store.
 
Interesting, bookmarked.

I guess the Quadro is fine then, and the HP is in with a bullet... That actually gives me more options too. Thanks.

Is there anywhere on that site which gives how those figures were tested? i.e. do they buy in / eval everything by theselves or do they average user-posted figures?
 
Ronco said:
I guess the Quadro is fine then, and the HP is in with a bullet... That actually gives me more options too. Thanks.
Click to expand...

If only it had 2 disk options...

Ronco said:
Is there anywhere on that site which gives how those figures were tested? i.e. do they buy in / eval everything by theselves or do they average user-posted figures?
Click to expand...

If you click on a specific card you can see results in various laptops, I guess those are based on in-house tests they make.
 
The Dell Outlet sometimes has RIDICULOUSLY low prices on some damned fine hardware. A few weeks ago they had an XPS M1330 refurb - that's Dell's new 13.3" Macbook killer that came out a few months ago - with the following:

Core 2 Duo at 2 GHz (can't remember the Txxxx number)
4GB of DDR2 667
250GB SATA hard drive
some higher end Geforce card with 256MB (it wasn't the GMA950 onboard, that's what I distinctly remember)
8x DVD burner
etc etc the rest of the features that model normally has

I hit the actual Dell page to buy the same configuration brand new and it came to over $1900.

The Outlet price? $949 with free shipping. Man I tell ya, there are times when I really hate the fact that I messed up my credit decades past in my youth, that was one of 'em. :)

www.dell.com/outlet

The thing about the Outlet is when you see a good deal you gotta get it right then and there almost immediately, you gotta be ready to pounce on it with the credit card screaming BUY BUY BUY!!! or else someone else will. I've seen reports that at any given time 250,000 people are staring at the same listings you are, so when a good deal appears - and they appear every second so you gotta be paying attention - you simply have to jump on it or someone else will already be clicking to put the item in their cart.

But really, if you want to get a Dell of any kind, always check the Outlet for a few days, you'd be amazed at what you'd find.
 
redavenab said:
That's not the most reliable site for scores.
Click to expand...

Fell free to share yours.

redavenab said:
Also the Quadro FX1600M and 8700M GT are the same damn card. Same clock speeds, same core, same everything but name. The scores should be the same and if they're not it's not because of the card itself.
Click to expand...

Maybe if they ware in the same machine the scores would match, but they're not.
Still, Quadro cards are foundy mostly in higher priced workstation models with other components being mostly top of the line, so the overall test scores can vary.
 
I've got a precision m90 and I think the fx3500 is dul link DVI so I assume the fx3600 should be.

Weight will be an issue if you carry it. It's got to be nearly 4kg, but mine only goes from desk to desk every so often. The screen is a wuxga true-life, although the gloss isn't bad. It's nowhere near as glossy as the work vaio I have (which is frankly a piece of crap) but it's not matte like my m70 15" wuxga. Viewing angles are again good but not great. I use mine for flash and some photoshop work along with general browsing etc. I've not had any really bad colour issues with it yet.

I'd say the screen is capable of graphics work. It's hard to compare it to the dell 30" though.
 
redavenab said:
That's not the most reliable site for scores.

Also the Quadro FX1600M and 8700M GT are the same damn card. Same clock speeds, same core, same everything but name. The scores should be the same and if they're not it's not because of the card itself.
Click to expand...

As Lack says, I'd be interested in a trustworthy site. So many supposed information resources out there deal with user-generated nebulous crap, with even 'traditional' media getting involved in the misinformation stakes (like "Fastest Vista machine we've tested" nonsense superlative on the Macbook Pro from PC World for example) that it would be really nice if I could go somewhere that has a documented test method, and a core of people who adhere to that without fail posting up figures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top